Apr 10, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
Talks held this month:
The Philosophical Basis for A Woman's Right To Abortion by Dr. Andrew Bernstein (April 20)
This talk is a defense -- on philosophical grounds -- of the right to abortion. To validate this right requires a rational theory of rights, one grounded in fact, not faith or feeling. In establishing the basis of this right, Dr. Bernstein also demonstrates that anti-abortionists have no rational basis for using the phrase "right to life." Dr. Bernstein presents the scientific arguments used by anti-abortionists, then demonstrates the errors in those arguments: failure to recognize the biological nature of the fetus; equivocation on key terms; and obliteration of the distinction between actual and potential. Dr. Bernstein grounds his view of rights in an ethics of rational egoism and contrasts it with the theory of self-sacrifice espoused by anti-abortionists. Both political conservatives and liberals deny the principle of individual rights and the egoist ethics on which rights depend. Only Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism validates both rights and egoism, thereby providing the only valid philosophical basis of a woman's right to abortion. One hour lecture followed by one hour Q and A.
Wed, April 20, 2005 6:30-8:30 PM
THH-101 (Taper Hall of Humanities), 3501 Trousdale Pkwy
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089
America at War: The Moral Imperative to Self-Defense by Dr. Andrew Bernstein (April 21, 2005)
Two major points are presented in this talk. One: Neither guns, bombs nor tanks constitute a nation's most powerful weapon. Rather, moral rectitude--the courage to proudly defend the property, freedom and lives of its citizens--does. The United States has abdicated this weapon in fifty years of appeasement in the Middle East. Just as President Thomas Jefferson and the fledgling republic--inspired by the battle cry of "Millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute"--had the courage to stand up to the notorious Barbary Pirates in 1801, so President George W. Bush must have the moral courage to wipe out America's current fanatical and deadly enemies. Two: This is not fundamentally a political but a philosophical struggle. Islamic Civilization--essentially a religious culture--loathes and seeks to destroy Western Civilization, which is essentially secular. Their religious fanaticism is the fundamental reason they hate the United States and the West, and is the reason that rational negotiation with them is impossible. This is a life-and-death struggle between contradictory philosophical systems. One hour lecture followed by one hour Q and A.
Thurs, April 21, 2005 5:30-7:30 PM, SGM-123 (Seely G. Mudd), 3620 McClintock,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Apr 8, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
The ARI website has an brilliant lecture by Professor John Lewis on "The Failure of the Homeland Defense: The Lessons From History." The description for the free lecture (registration required) is as follows:
With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, America has accepted a permanent, institutionalized state of siege on its own soil. But is this the correct strategy? In this lecture Dr. John Lewis examines several examples from history—including Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome—in which great nations, facing attack, have acted defensively rather than with bold offense. The results are clear: such a policy is suicidal. Rather than bracing against further attacks at home or spreading "democracy" abroad, America should destroy her enemies.
But this strategic lesson needs a moral foundation. The moral requirement of victory is self-interested action, not appeals to the needs of others. Wars cannot be fought altruistically. Once the civilian government has set clear goals, the military must be allowed to win. History illustrates the deep connection between intellectual clarity, moral certainty and the offensive strategy needed to defeat a ruthless enemy. Only Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism provides the moral basis for a successful military response to the threats we face today.
For articles available online by Dr. Lewis, click here.Apr 7, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA--"Balancing phonics and whole language reading instruction is like balancing food and poison," says Dr. Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute.
In a recent episode of a tragedy that is playing out across the nation, an elementary school in Rockford, Illinois, was ordered to discard direct instruction in phonics--despite the method's overwhelming success. At Lewis Lemon elementary school, thanks to phonics, ordinary third graders scored near the top in statewide readings tests, their results bested only by students at a school for the gifted. But the incoming school superintendent ordered that phonics instruction be replaced by "balanced literacy"--which mixes phonics with "whole-language" instruction. In issuing his order, the superintendent is following the still-dominant voices in our schools of education. Because "reading is such a complex and multifaceted activity," says Dr. Catherine Snow, professor of education at Harvard, "no single method is the answer."
"This is not a technical dispute about the best way to teach reading," explains Dr. Ghate. "The advocates of phonics view the very purpose of education as developing the child's mind. Accordingly, they systematically teach a child the facts and principles that will enable him to decode written language. The advocates of ‘whole language' view the purpose of education as developing the child's feelings. Accordingly, they denounce phonics as imposing ‘an uptight, must-be-right model of literacy' that stifles the child's self-expression. Instead, they say we should begin with what supposedly interests a child—whole words and stories—and allow him to substitute other words, to guess and to otherwise follow his fancy as he ‘reads.'
"We would consider it child abuse to add contaminated food to a child's diet for the sake of ‘balance,'" concludes Dr. Ghate. "We should also consider it child abuse when educators contaminate proper reading instruction by ‘balancing' it with ‘whole language.'"Apr 6, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
This year's tax season presents double punishment for today's taxpayer: high taxes and higher health care costs.
The twin threats, according to Americans for Free Choice in Medicine (AFCM), are related -- and a tax provision offers a partial remedy, just in time for April 15."Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) help consumers avoid both higher taxes and higher health care expenditures," suggests Richard E. Ralston, executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine (AFCM). "The best way to keep both taxes and the cost of health care down is to keep control of your own health care."Ralston explains that HSAs, used with low premium, high-deductible health insurance policies, put health care squarely within affordable reach of most Americans. Banks, insurance companies, and mutual fund firms now offer HSAs, which became law in 2004. HSAs have been heralded by most personal finance analysts as better than the Roth IRA. Ralston adds another item to the tax policy wish list: an exemption for every individual¹s health insurance premiums.For now, Ralston advised taxpayers: "Look into tax-free Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and liberate your health insurance premiums from taxes." Ralston's health care commentary has been published in the Houston Chronicle, Orange County Register and the Washington Times.Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, (AFCM), was founded in 1993. AFCM educates the public about the principles of socialized medicine and free market ideas, such as HSAs and tax reform, and publishes a consumer's guide on its Web site (http://www.afcm.org). AFCM is the nation's only educational organization based on individual rights, personal responsibility, and free market ideas in medicine.Apr 2, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From the archives:
Reason vs. Faith: In His Recent Encyclical, the Pope Claims to Be a Supporter of Reason, but Is Actually Its Arch-enemy by Peter Schwartz
As demonstrated throughout his encyclical, the pope wants to enshrine faith, but at the same time does not want to renounce the modern world of science and its consequences. The result; his attempt to have the church reign over everything, i.e. the 'evangelization of culture.'
Apr 1, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
Congress should be investigating our failed foreign policy--not wasting time investigating private steroid use in sports, says Dr. Andrew Bernstein, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute.
Threats against our very lives continue to mount--in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere--and our government does worse than nothing. Where is the investigation of our suicidal foreign policy--present and past, Republican and Democratic? The ensuing report would make our government's intelligence failures seem insignificant by comparison.
But instead, Congress investigates a private matter in which no one's rights are being violated. Said Bernstein: "Adult citizens of a free country--so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against others--have the right to ingest whatever substance they choose.
"Further, Major League Baseball and the National Football League are private organizations with the right to determine the rules under which they will associate with others. They alone have the right to determine whether they will ban players who take certain performance-enhancing substances, or ignore the practice.
"Congress should kick the habit of grandstanding for votes and let individuals and private organizations, including professional sports leagues, exercise their freedom. Congress should get back to its long-neglected but only proper function: to protect the individual rights of every American citizen against foreign or domestic threat. Private drug use is not a threat to America." 